Terminology: Theosis or Deification (or Divinization)

On the surface the terms seem to be identical translations: theosis (θέωσις, Greek), deification (Latin). However, as Normal Russel’s book carefully shows, theosis was only first used in 363 with Gregory of Nazianzus. However, the cognate term theopoieo (θεοποιἐω) was used as early as Clement of Alexandria (c.150-c.215) and Hippolytus of Rome (d.235). Theosis was not used regularly until byzantine times, with Ps. Dionysius and Maximus the Confessor laying the foundation for its popularity.

On the other hand, deification was not as popular in the Latin church (Russell only mentions Tertullian, Hilary of Poitiers, and Augustine), so there was not a comparable evolution of terminology surrounding the theology as with the Greek writers. Divinization is also a Latin term that carries a similar significance but has not been used as often. As to the distinction between divinization and deification, it seems there is a former debate over divinization (theosis) by Energy [good] vs. deification (apotheosis) by Essence [bad]. However, many use deification (e.g., Andrew Louth) and understand it as deification by energy.

Conclusion: 1) As we speak about the development of the doctrine it best to use ‘deification’ as a more generic term. Specifically, it does not employ an anachronistic, byzantine term–theosis–for the early development of the doctrine in the Greek fathers. This is exactly how Russell treats the terminology in his analysis of the Greek tradition. 2) However, if we are speaking of the concept from a systematic theological point of view, it seems to me that theosis or deification would be virtually equivalent (like, for example, kavod [Heb.] and doxa [Gk.]).

I recently had a very helpful email exchange with Carl Mosser, who also promoted conclusion #1 but not #2. He made a distinction between ‘deification’ as the proper Christian view of salvation and ‘theosis’ which is a later (inappropriate) mystical turn influenced by philosophical thought (e.g., Ps. Dionysius and Maximus). I would lean more towards a thesis recently promoted by Donald Fairbairn in the recent version of JETS on “Patristic Soteriology: Three Trajectories?”, where the mystical has roots much earlier in Clement and Origen and so is not technically a ‘later’ turn. I, however, have many more primary sources to read to develop my own informed opinion.

Advertisements

Share this:

Like this:

Related

What ever happened to Union with Christ, or Christ-likeness, who was, in fact, deity? I think i would prefer to use those concepts to speak about the divine ‘energy’ in humanity. For some reason-not sure why, maybe you could help- i associate all other terms with essence. What would be the historical reason for this?

The energy/essence distinction goes back to Gregory Palamas and is now basic theology for the East. He came up for a solution for how we can talk of participation in God even though he is utterly separate from his creation in his ‘essence’. The way we participate in him is through his uncreated ‘engeries’ that radiate from him.

This ideology is actually an interesting parallel to the way Paul and other early writers speak of God (Merkebah/Hekhalot)–God is invisible (Rom 1.20; 1 Tim 1.17) but dwells in light (1 Tim 6.15-16). It is this glory that we share in and that determines the ultimate goal for believers.

After thinking through some of the issues related to glory in Romans for my paper for BNTS, my conclusion is that Paul talks more of Christosis or ‘incorporated righteousness’ than theosis.

Interesting post. I was at ETS and went Carl Mosser’s paper and I have read both Russell’s text and Fairbairn’s article.

You asked me before what I thought of Fairburn’s article. (BTW I have read also his book on Cyril and grace) I think it was okay. I do not agree that Harnack accepted Western Christianity since it is my view, after reading his history of Dogma, that he felt that doctrines such as the Trinity and the incarnation were a major part of the hellenization of Christianity. He even rejected parts of the canon (John) for the same reason. For Harnack Christianty was essentially ethical and not metaphysical.

But I think the largest problem with Fairbairn’s article is that Athanasius, Cyril, nad other theologians who are in his personal trajectory also believed in a real and organic union of hte believer and Christ. Cyril argued for real presence of the Eucharist because in order for us to be deified we must really participate and even ingest (if I can say it that crudely) the flesh of Christ. The flesh of Christ is deified because of its contact with the Divinity of Christ and thus is life giving. And we partake of his body (and his blood) so that we can be deified. I am making this point because since Cyril believed in a real and organic union with Christ then Cyril also had to deal with how the believer acheives this union and yet does not lose his identity and is not assummed into the Godhead in a way that Fairbairn says Cyril does not believe in. Cyril did believe that we become God’s son in an ontological sense but not in the way that Christ is God’s son in an ontological sense. We by grace become God’s son in an ontological sense (and other senses) through The Father’s only Son by nature by the power of the H.S.. So it is not that we in no way are ontologically in union with Christ but that we are not in the way Christ is. At least that is the way I see Cyril.

What is intersting is if one looks at Russell’s text and his categories and then take these and put them on Fairburn’s then you have strange problem. Athanasius for Russell beleived in realistic deification but then Fairburn seems to me to argue the opposite. And Origen and the Cappadocians for Russell believed in ethical deification but Fairburn seems to be arguing the opposite again. I view Russell saying that realistic deification is a real and organic participation in Christ through the sacraments. While ethical deification is the “attainment of likeness to God trough ascetic and philosophical endeavour, believer’s reproducing some of the divine attributes in their own lives by imitation.” (Russell,Norman. The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek PAtrisitc Tradtion, p 2). So Fairburn in a sense is like Russell but in a very real way says the opposite of Russell. So which one is right? I think in the end neither.

Sorry if I hijacked this thread. I think what this thread is about is important also.

I humbly admit that I could be wrong and even that I could be wrong about Russell and Fairburn.

Interesting post and replies, I enjoyed them all. I’m a former atheist, and have no higher education in the details of theology, but having been possessed by an “energy” and having engaged in an exchange of “energies” with “God,” these discussions have piqued my curiosity.

Greetings from Hosur!
I have just published a book on DIVINIZATION which is very exhaustive and does an in-depth analysis of several complex topics like: Purgatory, Trinity, Transfiguration and Divinization. It is also an experiential depiction of Catholic Spirituality.
regards
Francis aka PitcharanAgape: The Divinizing Love